Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Is Communism good?
This poll is closed.
Yes 375 66.25%
No 191 33.75%
Total: 523 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Locked thread
Kilroy
Oct 1, 2000

SpaceDrake posted:

Quick realtalk: Soviet/Stalinist-style Communism is awful because it's ultimately just oligarchy wearing red clothing. Democratic Socialism, meanwhile, is pretty much the only sensible way to run a high-technology, well-developed civilization in a stable manner (which is why so much of Europe has developed in that direction).
Yeah central planning falls down mostly due to corruption and because the state can and inevitably will gently caress up the targets so you end up with the all shoelaces you could ever want, and no bread. Markets are usually good about not letting that happen.

The people making the stuff owning the stuff they use to make the stuff, is cool and good though. Hogge Wild I'm interested what you would think of the employees of a company splitting the vote with the shareholders over who sits on the board of directors?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Kilroy
Oct 1, 2000

Hogge Wild posted:

I think that would depend on size of the company. Some small businesses could work fine, but I don't think that large multinationals would be any less corrupt. Eg. leftist mps aren't any more honest than conservative ones.
It's not about electing a leftist to the board or whatever, it's about the workers having a say in the direction of the company. Like for example if it's very profitable and makes excellent economic sense to offshore (or automate) half the headcount and lay off the locals, then maybe the company should do that, but under the current corporate regime that means the workers get hung out to dry while the shareholders reap enormous profits. If instead the workers had a voice you might see that same company still do the offshoring, but the laid off workers get a generous severance arrangement or even a pension out of the deal - they reap the rewards of the company making a sound strategic decision, in other words. And on the other hand if the offshoring is basically just an accounting trick which wrecks the long term health of the company but gives a generous dividend to the shareholders for a quarter or two - well then it's probably not going to happen since the people working there want to keep their jobs more than they want a dividend.

Note that under this regime the company ends up making better long-term decisions. Sounds good to me.

Kilroy fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jan 21, 2017

  • Locked thread